Katie Couric is Full of It

Katie Couric has new documentary out called “Under the Gun”. Ostensibly a look at gun violence, it would appear to be very heavy on the pro-gun control side, with gun control supporters massively outnumbering gun control opponents among the interviews. And from what I’ve been reading, it looks like she’s trying to fill the rather sizable in deceptive left-wing propaganda left by Michael Moore.

The worst mistakes here rise to the level of factual error, and they undermine the film as a whole. There is no law, for example, “making it illegal to sue gun manufacturers”; rather, the law lays out the specific circumstances in which such lawsuits are allowed. These include cases stemming from illegal sales and design defects. The law was enacted amidst a wave of lawsuits against companies whose legally sold guns had eventually been used in crimes.

Further, despite what was claimed in an al-Qaeda video featured here without correction, one cannot “go to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card.” Fully automatic weapons, which fire continuously when the trigger is held down, are heavily regulated. Gun owners have been harping on the media’s failure to grasp this automatic/semiautomatic distinction for decades.

And even when the film gets its facts right, it often makes little attempt to explore both sides of an issue. While everyday gun owners and activists make numerous appearances—some flattering and some definitely not—pro-gun experts are sorely lacking. Gun-control advocates are well-represented by folks like Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Robyn Thomas of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and Mark Follman of Mother Jones. Viewers are left believing that there are no similarly well-informed researchers and journalists on the right.

She also repeats a bunch of candards such as the false claim that a mass shooting has never been stopped by a legal gun owner.

But the Free Beacon recently discovered that she goes even beyond that:

A conservative news site posted what it said was audio proof that filmmakers behind a documentary about the gun control debate deliberately edited video to portray gun-rights activists as unable to answer questions about background checks.

The audio, posted by The Washington Free Beacon on Wednesday, seemed to differ from the video shown in the documentary, “Under the Gun,” in which a group of activists appear to fall silent during an interview with the news anchor Katie Couric.

“If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” Ms. Couric asks. The next shot in the film is of the activists looking on with blank stares instead of answering the question.

In the audio clip of the interview posted by The Free Beacon, Ms. Couric prefaces her question with a remark — “I know how you all are going to answer this but I’m asking anyway” — before she asks about background checks.

“One, if you’re not in jail you should still have your basic rights,” someone answers about one second later.

You can click through to get the entire audio. The gun owners don’t hesitate at all. They answer her questions immediately and directly, showing an understanding of the issues that Couric lacks and an appreciation of the subtleties. The difference between that and the video couldn’t be more blatant.

Couric and her producers are defending this as an “editing choice”. They say they just wanted people to think about the issue. I find this excuse to be garbage. You can make the audience think about a question without portraying your political opponents as bumbling idiots. And it’s not like the Left is unfamiliar with this complaint. The Planned Parenthood and ACORN videos came under fire for this kind of deceptive editing. But, apparently, all’s fair when it comes to riding our society of the dread evil firearm.

Kudos to the interviewees in this video. Not only did they effectively answer questions from a hostile interviewer, they had the wisdom to record the interview to make sure they were not misquoted. It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you. And the gun grabbers are really out to get us.

Comments are closed.

  1. AlexInCT

    What makes me wonder is the fact that people act as if this is something outside of the norm. It is not. Whenever I see a”documentary” I know I am about to see a manufactured pile of garbage. The left controlled media has made a habit of doing this shit in one form or another. They are so convinced the nonsense that forms their ideology is true that when they can’t find real world examples, they make them up. How many hoaxes and false stories to back up the left’s agenda have we recently been fed, with all the angst and demands for leftist justice, only to discover it was bullshit?

    From ignoring things they know hurt the left’s agenda to outright making up shit like Couric and  many others (Dan Rather anyone?) that just have not been exposed doing this shit yet do, they feel the end justifies the means. That is why as soon as one of these assholes tells me they are independent and unbiased, I immediately know I am dealing with a leftist douche that is about to lie, cheat, and steal to push the left’s lies. Similarly, whenever I hear about some horrible story that back’s the left’s agenda, I am immediately suspicious that we are dealing with lies and a hoax. So far I am batting 1.000.

    These people are despicable, and they are mad that the rubes have wizened up to their deceit and manipulations, and it shows. This ends with Couric and others accusing everyone of being the problem, and will never accept that they and things like this, are the problem. Rather still has not admitted he was a scumbag trying to use bullshit to convince the American people to elect a member of his tribe. He, and I suspect Couric, will never admit the problem is them. The left will circle the wagons, yet again, to defend this shit, but that is a great thing. It will help convince even more people that these people are nothing but shills and liars for the left.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Christopher

    Can’t say that I’m surprised, unfortunately.  They seem to be perfectly comfortable omitting relevant information in order to pursue their agenda.  I guess they don’t consider that “lying,” even though it clearly is.

    To make matters worse, gun control advocates are amazingly incapable of self-criticism, as evidenced by their non-apology over this issue.  How many times have each of us heard them incessantly repeat claims that have been repeatedly rebutted?  We all know that Hal, and several others, have responded to their claims that mass shootings are rising, as well as to their claims that no mass shootings have been stopped by an armed citizen.  Even when they actually acknowledge these criticisms, rather than admit that they were wrong, they just come up with any excuse that they can to defend their previous point.

    For example, when James Alan Fox criticized Mother Jones about the rise of mass shootings, they defended their “methodology” by saying:

    //The data [Fox] uses includes all homicides in which four or more people were murdered with a gun. His analysis, which counts the number of events per year, lumps together mass shootings in public places with a far more numerous set of mass murders that are contextually distinct—a majority of which stem from domestic violence and occur in private homes. Fox’s annual count and use of overly broad data including many types of mass killings fail to detect the recent shift in public mass shootings.//

    Here’s my source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research

    This seems to suggest to me that, while there may be an increase in their arbitrarily-chosen set of mass shootings, they admit that the overall number of mass shootings hasn’t increased.  Which basically means that other mass shootings (ones that would be included in the overall number, but don’t fit Mother Jones’ criteria) are actually decreasing, right?

    And then there’s their claims about there being no mass shootings that were stopped by armed citizens.  They write each example off by saying “that guy was a former cop” or “that guy was former/current military,” so they apparently don’t count.  They were eager to respond to examples and arguments cited by sources like John Lott or Buzzfeed, but I have yet to hear them actually address the arguments made by Mark Hemingway at the Weekly Standard, or Eugene Volokh:


    It’s like you said: The gun grabbers really are out to get us.  I can’t look at it any other way.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    It’s like you said: The gun grabbers really are out to get us.  I can’t look at it any other way.

    And when you realize that is the agenda, you should ask yourself why they are hell bent on doing this. I mean, what have they got planned next that is predicated on a disarmed citizenry that now depends on agents of the state, and agents of the state alone, for their security and defense?

    Thumb up 0